Someone would probably have to write a posix AIO version of our implementation.

Our native IO version however is already doing async writes batched by the TimedBuffers. libaio is done at the kernel level, while Posix AIO is a level above the kernel I think. So I"m not sure PosixAIO will give you any benefits in top of our asynchronous implementation in Java.

If that's something at users thread level and not kernel I suspect posix AIO will hardly give you any benefit in top if the pure java implementation in place which is already simulating asynchronous writes.

To give you an idea libaio still alive just because the direct memory and direct writes made a difference, but if Posix AIO is just a good wrapper I don't see a point in oerformance to justify the investment.

POSIX AIO for Linux is just wrapper at top of libaio. Performance on Linux should be about same as using libaio directly.

Because POSIX AIO is supported by other operation systems which do not supports libaio - FreeBSD, Solaris and AIX, using posix aio will give portability. Other operation systems such as solaris has their native AIO support too, but they also support posix standard.

if you want to contribute the code changes I'm all support for it. It shouldn't be a lot of changes in terms of coding. I would though still prefer to keep the current libaio available in parallel, at least until we are completely sure it has no performance impact. I have spent quite some good ammount of time on it.. and replacing the whole library will require performance tests and QA tests.